5 ms·

> Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. Ho

> Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? Not reddit, but I bookmarked this example a few years ago. It is a very little thing, but very showing. Remember when T. was trying to negotiate some deal with North Korea? One of the things which came out of it was DPRK returning some remnants of U.S. soldiers from the Korean war back to the U.S. I consider the New Yorker to be one of the best pieces of journalism which the U.S. has to offer (no irony here). Here are two articles from there: one is about that story, the remnants of soldiers coming back, another one is about Diet Coke. They were on the front page of their website on the same day, and I clicked both. 1: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-of-bones-from-north-korea https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/waiting-for-a-box-o... 2: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decline-and-fall-of-diet-coke-and-the-power-generation-that-loved-it https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-decli... One of them mentions T, another one does not. Can you guess which one? Can you guess whether it is a "positive" mention? So, now back to your question: > Maybe the reason you don't see anything positive about T where you describe is because there isn't a whole lot to say in that regard? Maybe. Or maybe not. How do I know? I'm not from the U.S., but I guess that you are, so you tell me. For now, I can tell you that I lost a lot of trust in the U.S. media, but maybe you can change my mind. I'm not a T. follower, so (according to you) there might be a possibility of a dialog.

pstuart 6y ago
The 2 articles you cite are interesting. I'd argue that the NK article was fine as it -- it was about the soldiers long story coming to a close. Was it by virtue of the actions of T? Sure, I'll give him that. Did he need to be specifically praised for that in the context? No, it wasn't about him, it was about the soldiers. The second article is a "culture" piece and the inclusion of T in that is a head scratcher. I was not impressed by it (regardless of the random T tidbit). That's a sample size of 2, and while both could be arguable evidence for your position, it's not of much to work with. You say you're not a T. follower, but you imply that "the media" is not fair to him. Were you aware of any of his conduct in these past 4 years? Nothing out of the ordinary? Are you aware that he's actively trying to overthrow the election that he lost? Does that seem ok to you? Are you aware of Bush v. Gore? I could go on and on if you wished. But the more important thing is: if I am correct and I'm unable to persuade you then where does that leave us? How can we fix a problem that "doesn't exist"?
- yakireev 6y ago
  > No, it wasn't about him, it was about the soldiers. It wasn't. But a bit of a context wouldn't hurt, right? Why did Koreans choose to return the remnants, out of the blue? You wouldn't have guessed it unless I told you, right? Given the general atmosphere, it certainly feels like there's a deliberate omission. Yay for the best journalism the U.S. has to offer. I'm aware of T's conduct, I don't like him and I wouldn't vote for him if I happened to be a U.S. citizen. But I'm not, so I don't really care about him that much. What I care about is freedom in a very broad sense, including the freedom to share information and express opinions, and to know other what others have to share and express. And here T. and his fate in media and on social platforms is a mere indicator. Back to reddit: in 2016 you could see supporters from both sides. They were visible and vocal about what they had to say. In 2020, there is only "orange man bad" side to be seen. If I did not know better, I could have thought that this represents a legitimate change of the tides: in 2016 T. had supporters, now he does not. But this isn't the case. In 2016 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, in 2020 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, no change here. So what changed? Reddit. For what I know, it deliberately chose to suppress the voices of the T. supporters for some reason. Ban this subreddit, quarantine that, change the mods to more loyal ones there. Like I said, they're probably in their own right, but this reverse astroturfing is scary. This is scary because: what are they going to suppress next? What else did they suppress, but I did not notice? And if venues in the range between the best and the snobbiest magazine and the semi-anonymous public message board choose to suppress something, where do I find it then? And, most importantly, why so many reasonable people find this OK? Even fellow HN folks suddenly became very pro-censorship in the recent couple of years. My guess is that they have never been on the receiving end of it :( It is not about T, it is not even about Reddit. How do I find something if Google chooses to suppress it? How do I send a link to what I found to my friend, if their messenger of choice bans these particular links, and their email provider puts emails with these links to spam? How do I keep my friends updated about what I have to say if their social networks or news aggregating tools forbid or suppress links to my website? Or (as in the case of Facebook, afaik) suppress links to all websites, while censoring their in-platform content heavily? Do you really think that the problem "does not exist"?
  - 6y ago

pstuart 6y ago

The 2 articles you cite are interesting. I'd argue that the NK article was fine as it -- it was about the soldiers long story coming to a close. Was it by virtue of the actions of T? Sure, I'll give him that. Did he need to be specifically praised for that in the context? No, it wasn't about him, it was about the soldiers. The second article is a "culture" piece and the inclusion of T in that is a head scratcher. I was not impressed by it (regardless of the random T tidbit). That's a sample size of 2, and while both could be arguable evidence for your position, it's not of much to work with. You say you're not a T. follower, but you imply that "the media" is not fair to him. Were you aware of any of his conduct in these past 4 years? Nothing out of the ordinary? Are you aware that he's actively trying to overthrow the election that he lost? Does that seem ok to you? Are you aware of Bush v. Gore? I could go on and on if you wished. But the more important thing is: if I am correct and I'm unable to persuade you then where does that leave us? How can we fix a problem that "doesn't exist"?

yakireev 6y ago
> No, it wasn't about him, it was about the soldiers. It wasn't. But a bit of a context wouldn't hurt, right? Why did Koreans choose to return the remnants, out of the blue? You wouldn't have guessed it unless I told you, right? Given the general atmosphere, it certainly feels like there's a deliberate omission. Yay for the best journalism the U.S. has to offer. I'm aware of T's conduct, I don't like him and I wouldn't vote for him if I happened to be a U.S. citizen. But I'm not, so I don't really care about him that much. What I care about is freedom in a very broad sense, including the freedom to share information and express opinions, and to know other what others have to share and express. And here T. and his fate in media and on social platforms is a mere indicator. Back to reddit: in 2016 you could see supporters from both sides. They were visible and vocal about what they had to say. In 2020, there is only "orange man bad" side to be seen. If I did not know better, I could have thought that this represents a legitimate change of the tides: in 2016 T. had supporters, now he does not. But this isn't the case. In 2016 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, in 2020 he got slightly less than a half of all votes, no change here. So what changed? Reddit. For what I know, it deliberately chose to suppress the voices of the T. supporters for some reason. Ban this subreddit, quarantine that, change the mods to more loyal ones there. Like I said, they're probably in their own right, but this reverse astroturfing is scary. This is scary because: what are they going to suppress next? What else did they suppress, but I did not notice? And if venues in the range between the best and the snobbiest magazine and the semi-anonymous public message board choose to suppress something, where do I find it then? And, most importantly, why so many reasonable people find this OK? Even fellow HN folks suddenly became very pro-censorship in the recent couple of years. My guess is that they have never been on the receiving end of it :( It is not about T, it is not even about Reddit. How do I find something if Google chooses to suppress it? How do I send a link to what I found to my friend, if their messenger of choice bans these particular links, and their email provider puts emails with these links to spam? How do I keep my friends updated about what I have to say if their social networks or news aggregating tools forbid or suppress links to my website? Or (as in the case of Facebook, afaik) suppress links to all websites, while censoring their in-platform content heavily? Do you really think that the problem "does not exist"?
- 6y ago